[Python-Dev] Traceback problem

[Kevin Jacobs]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Christian Tismer wrote:
> > You and Kevin Jacobs can argue about the syntax.
> 
> Proposals, in decreasing orders of delight:
> 
> 1) Implement exeptions according to the documentation.
>     Cleaning exceptions after they are handled is what
>     most users would expect, last but not least since
>     the documentation suggests it.

This is not a practical option -- while I don't think the current behavior
is ideal, we have a great deal of code that relies on this behavior.  I'm
sure that many other Python developers are in the same boat.  If this is to
change, we need to do a lot more work to justify it, and to give at least
full one version of notice before enforcing it.

> 2) Add an optional boolean clear argument to sys.exc_info()
>     This is lame, but it gives the user one way out.

  exc_info(...)
    exc_info() -> (type, value, traceback)

    Return information about the exception that is currently being handled.
    This should be called from inside an except clause only.

Adding an argument to this function reeks of a kludge.  Its job is to return
information, and should not take any magic arguments to make it a
'one-shot'.

> 3) Add an extra reset_exp function to sys.
>     More lame since it requires an extra function,
>     just to patch a "feature".

This one gets my vote (if this were a democracy).  "Explicit is better than
implicit".  The new symbol in the sys namespace also makes it easy to test
for the capability (without a version number check).  Maybe it should be
called 'clear_exc' or 'reset_exc_info' (to match the C API name).

> 4) Keep things as they are, and expect the Spanish Inquision.

I'm even okay with the status quo and can continue to use my current hack to
clear exception data.

Regards,
-Kevin

-- 
--
Kevin Jacobs
The OPAL Group - Enterprise Systems Architect
Voice: (216) 986-0710 x 19         E-mail: jacobs@theopalgroup.com
Fax:   (216) 986-0714              WWW:    http://www.theopalgroup.com